Severian

I would go even further than that. Anything which causes an acceleration is a force, even if you are in a non-inertial frame. So a centrifugal force is still a force. It is not, however, a fundamental force.

I am sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. Christianity comes from Christ and God, not the 'Holy Church'. Just because the 'Holy Church' says something doesn't make it true.

I didn't like it. I thought KOTOR I was much better. I have just started playing Assassin's Creed II, but so far I am not very impressed.

I am going to give the opposite advice to almost everyone else in this thread (which is, at first sight odd, since I am a Christian). I think your friend is probably right. Having sex when you are young is something which you will never be able to do again, and it will probably change your attitudes towards sex and relationships for the better. I see a lot of people get really worked up about sex. The idea of staying a virgin, or keeping yourself pure for your 'one true love' can really screw up your priorities. It makes you put sex on a pedestal as the ultimate declaration of love, and in my opinion that will ultimately lead to disappointment. This is not to say that you should suddenly go off and have sex with everyone. That is unhealthy too (both psychologically and physically). But I think having sex now and again will demystify it for you and give you a better perspective on life. So find someone to whom you are attracted, who doesn't have to be your ideal mate, but will be sympathetic and gentle for your first time, and have some fun. From a Christian perspective (for those who may be interested), I believe that obsession Christians often have about staying virginal until marriage, acts as a barrier between themselves and God, so is ultimately damaging to their faith and their relationship with God.

As a practising Christian I can agree that there are degrees of faith. I know people with more faith than myself, and I know people with less.

No more than, say, colour is a thing.

It is.

Paul is a smart guy, so his vote counts for a lot of the alternate votes.

I concur with ajb. No gravity would just mean no curvature - not no space-time.

Why do you think you wouldn't be able to see this "shrapnel"? It would still scatter light. What you have in mind sounds very like Saturn's rings and we can see them.

I would class Richard Dawkins as a religious extremist.

I am inclined to agree.

Can you prove that?

I have never been assaulted - I have had my bum pinched by passing women, but I don't think that counts. I did once have a drunk guy be quite abusive with a girl I was with, but since I punched him first, I don't think that counts either.

In case you hadn't noticed, the reason the debate is "going well" is because only one side of the argument is being posted. Religious people are saying well away. You can't have mush "debate" with only one side of the argument. But please do carry on with your circle jerk...

A better quote is Jeremiah 32:17 or Luke 1:37 But this (or the others you quote) is not saying he is omnipotent in the sense that people here mean. It very clearly states in various parts of the bible that God is constrained by his own character. (This is what I meant by the blood sacrifice statement - he made a covenant which says that blood must pay for sin, so Christ had to die on the cross.) Indeed, saying that God is omnipotent and benevolent is a contradiction. Benevolence is a constraint, so contradicts omnipotence. But of course, that doesn't stop him being 'almighty' because the things he cannot do are self-constraints - things he doesn't want to do.

The bible never claims that God is omnipotent. In fact it says that he cannot deny his own nature. Hence the need for blood sacrifice to atone for sin.

I would take your statement further. If there is no testable consequences of a phenomenon, then the "truth" is subjective. It can differ for different people. So if someone believes in your little demons, then it is true for them - just as true as their non-existence for someone who doesn't believe in them.

I have been trying not to get too involved in this discussion, but I think I should probably respond to that last one, since it was a bit confrontational. It is not 'murder' if it is lawful. Remember that laws are not made by the government - they are made by the people via representative democracy. If you think a policy is wrong, don't vote for it. It is also illegal for me to lock you up in my basement. But it is not illegal for the government to lock you up if you are found guilty of a crime. So this is a straw-man argument. Why is it dumb? It is clearly true - dead people don't re-offend. Interestingly this brings to the fore the fundamental difference between our two positions: the end objective of the exercise. My position is that our justice system should not be about revenge or punishment - it should be about protecting society, so that society functions in the optimal way without constructive law-abiding citizens being hampered (or killed!) by crime. If I was aware of a crime committed abut was 100% sure that the criminal would not re-offend, then I would be happy to let him be 'unpunished'. It is not quite so stark a choice in reality though, since you can never be 100% sure and no penalty at all would encourage others to do it too. (As an example, if I have been the judge on that recent case where a mother killed her son who was dieing and in pain, I would have let her off.) On the other hand, it seems to me that you are more interested in punishment. A criminal needs to 'pay his due' and suddenly everything is forgiven and forgotten. Theft is not a violent crime, so this is completely outside the discussion. Another straw man. (And cutting off a thief's hand probably doesn't prevent his re-offending.) If you pull out all the teeth, the mouth does not function well. The objective would be to pull out the bad ones. If it is just a cavity, your dentist can fill it, but if the decay is down to the root, would you not want it removed? I think you need to find a new dentist. Who said anything about 'like'? I have nothing against these people personally. I have just weighed up the facts, and realised that society would function more optimally without them. That's democracy! Actually, I also think it is wrong to kill under any circumstances. But this is a moral stance. Government should not be enforcing moral stances on us - it should be determining the policies that lead to the 'best' (however one defines that) running of society and then allow us to choose between options by democratic vote. I don't understand how you think "killing defencless prisoners is always wrong" (sic) but locking them up in a hell-hole isn't. The number of people who are locked up until they die (of old age) is tiny. Most violent criminals are free in a few years and go back to committing violent crimes again. So the current system does not do what you advertise. If you were to lock up the people "for the term of their natural lives" who need to be locked up, it would be prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, I am not happy for government to take money from poor families in order to provide for and protect society from violent offenders. Also, you are wrong with the last statement. If you execute all violent offenders, the re-offending rate would be zero. People who didn't commit violent crimes and then did would not be "re-offending" since they hadn't offended in the first place! Isn't it obvious? The majority of murders are committed by people who had been previously convicted of violent crime. Clearly the majority of murders wouldn't happen any more. The US has a higher rate of murder for numerous reasons, none of which have anything to do with the death penalty. For example, the inequalities of wealth, the stupid policy of putting non-violent offenders in with hardened criminals, the drugy policy etc etc.

They are not the same thing at all. One is lawful killing,the other is not. It is perfectly well defined. Besides, you are not 'trying to teach your society' anything - you are trying to prevent violent criminals from re-offending. I would disagree. As I said above, the objective is simply to prevent re-offending. I can guarantee that a dead person won't re-offend, but the same cannot be said for a convict released from prison after serving 15 years. iNow talks of hypocrisy, but I think the hypocrisy is in the camp of those who oppose the death penalty. I am quite prepared to shoulder the moral responsibility for the innocent lives that are lost accidentally through wrongful convictions, but the death penalty opposers wash their hands of the responsibility they bear for the rapes, abuse and deaths caused by re-offenders they have put back on the street. The fact is, a stringent death penalty would save lives.

This thread is amazingly full of logical fallacies. Slippery slope arguments and appeals to emotion are all here in abundance. I have yet to see a compelling argument against the death penalty other than a 'ohhh - its wrong!' Sometimes tough decisions need to be made in order to improve society.

I disagree. The victims of serial killers are not the only cost of violent crime.

Since I apparently "inspired" this thread I suppose I should comment. I believe that to take a human life is morally wrong, but I do believe in the death penalty. That might seem like a contradiction, but I agree with Pangloss that morality has nothing to do with it. Morality is subjective and individual, but our legal system should not be. Let me also say that I advocate extending the death penalty to all violent offenders, not just the usual death-row inmates. Why I think this should become clear below. First I list the pros for the death penalty: Pro 1: Cost It probably surprises you that I list cost as a pro. After all, the death penalty in the US is incredibly expensive. There are costs for appeals and costs for maximum security on death row and many other things I won't list. However, these are costs due to the way the death penalty is administered, not the death penalty itself. So, we get rid of appeals altogether. After all, if a jury of one's peers have decided you are guilty, then in the eyes of the law you are guilty (I will deal with wrongful convictions later). Before a guilty verdict we must assume that the accused is innocent, but equally, after being proven guilty we must assume that they are guilty. On the very same day as the verdict is announced, the convicted criminal should be taken to an execution chamber and killed by lethal injection. (Incidentally, I disapprove of making it into a spectacle - just kill him or her quietly.) No appeals, no maximum security between conviction and execution, and no more mental torment for the criminal. If you also execute all violent offenders, you also remove the need for maximum security prisons altogether. That would be a huge saving of money. Imagine the money we could save that could be used to fund healthcare for the poor. Spending money on violent offenders instead of sick children kills as surely as any death penalty does. Pro 2: Prevention The prison system is just dumb. You catch a young first-time offender, maybe just selling cannabis and you stick him in with a group of hardened criminals who teach him how to be a proper criminal, and then let him back on the streets. What idiot had that idea? By removing violent offenders altogether, you cut the cancer out at the core. Career criminals are simply removed - they will not go back into society so they cannot commit more crimes. I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK 58% of convicts re-offend within 2 years of being released. Imagine how many innocent people are dieing because you let these guys back out on the street. Again it is a matter of judgement as to whether you think a convict's life is worth more of less than x non-convicts, but for me that x-value is pretty low (maybe 10-5). The convicts have made their choice to declare war on our society, and they should be the ones paying the price. Pro 3: Deterrent To be honest, I think this is a rather weak pro. Most criminals would not commit the crime if they thought they were going to get caught. Also, criminals who get caught are probably pretty stupid, so it doesn't make much sense to ascribe logical reasoning to them. Never-the-less, it must have some effect as a deterrent, so should be a pro. The other reason I don't think this is a strong pro is... Pro 4: The death penalty is more humane I think death is a natural part of life. People live, people die - it is has always been like that. We don't moralise when someone is killed by a tiger in the jungle (even if not killed for food) - it is just the way the world works. Prison, on the other hand, is not natural. As Mr Skeptic pointed out, death by old age in a prison is also a death penalty - but it is a horrible lingering one. Of course, this is also not a terribly strong pro because it is subjective, but I can honestly say I would rather die than be sent to a prison for the rest of my life. Now on to the cons: Con 1: Innocent deaths Not killing someone clearly allows you to reassess someone's guilt at a later stage, and indeed disturbingly often evidence appears a few years later which exonerates the convicted criminal. To this I have two responses. First of all, this is a criticism of the courtroom, not the punishment. An innocent person should not be convicted in the first place. Indeed, maybe part of the cost savings outlined above could be used to improve this. Secondly, and more importantly, so what? I think this criticism of the death penalty stem from a misunderstanding of statistics. There are about 1.5 million offenders in US prisons. Assuming they are all violent offenders (they are not) and assuming that the proportion of them who are innocent is 3% would give 45,000 wrongful deaths. To put this in context, this is slightly lower than the number of people killed in traffic accidents in the US each year. If we use more conservative numbers and say that the number of violent criminals is say 500,000 (I genuinely have no idea what this number is) and the rate of wrongful conviction is 0.1% (the NYT estimated 0.027% while the Wall Street Journal estimate 0.065%) then the number of wrongful deaths would be 500. That is about 4 days worth of road traffic accidents. And even then, the number we should actually be using is the number of people wrongly convicted who had never been convicted of a violent crime before. Those that had committed a violent crime in the past cannot be wrongly convicted if they are dead... We make judgement calls in our society all the time that lead to deaths which are way in excess to anything you would cause with the death penalty. Now, you might say that the deaths caused by, say, traffic accidents are accidental, so not compatible. However, they are preventable - just ban cars. Of course we are not willing to do that because we are willing to take the risk of deing in a car crash to gain the advantage of mobility. We think that our society is a better place with the mobility offered by cars, and that improvement outweighs the risk of dieing in an accident. Well, I contend that the improvement of living in a society with vastly reduced violent crime rates outweighs the risk of being accidentally killed through a wrongful conviction.

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago:

Don't you think £10,000 seems a little excessive?